A&H

Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

JamesL said:
I was of the impression that all goals will be reviewed and I happen to think rightly so. Its about the only natural stoppage in the game whih presents a real opportunity to use the tech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then you are opening things up completely again. So, a winger might be running down the line with a defending full back chasing him. The defender tries to engage or make a challenge, but the winger is too strong and slightly nudges or uses his body against the defender. No referee or assistant would ever call that as a foul in real-time because let's say it wasn't. The winger crosses the ball and the attacking team score. At no point did any official think it was a foul by the attacker/winger in real-time. But because you review every single goal, it's like you are looking for ways to rule the goal out. So the VAR checks the replay and see's the attacker gain a very small (usually legal) advantage against the defender by using his body and then rules the goal out.

I think there is a massive difference on a lot of typical and standard refereeing decisions if you referee the game by video rather than the eye in real time. As a qualified referee, qualified coach and as a player who has been in pro environments I am so concerned with VAR's use I wish I was on the IFAB board because in my opinion it's nowhere near ready to be introduced and the fact they are talking about using it at the World Cup this summer is worrying but I've got a feeling it will cause major uproar and be a disaster so if there is some sort of agenda or the powers at be want to introduce VAR you'd assume they would iron out every single little potential negative with it before using it at the World Cup!
 
The Referee Store
NorthLondonRef said:
Yeah, but then you are opening things up completely again. So, a winger might be running down the line with a defending full back chasing him. The defender tries to engage or make a challenge, but the winger is too strong and slightly nudges or uses his body against the defender. No referee or assistant would ever call that as a foul in real-time because let's say it wasn't. The winger crosses the ball and the attacking team score. At no point did any official think it was a foul by the attacker/winger in real-time. But because you review every single goal, it's like you are looking for ways to rule the goal out. So the VAR checks the replay and see's the attacker gain a very small (usually legal) advantage against the defender by using his body and then rules the goal out.
Click to expand...
Not so when you apply the principles of
Clear error or serious incident. What you describe above is trifling and opinion of ref and goal should be allowed to stand on that virtue.
For example checking for offside... it is a factual decision. He is on or he is off. There is no is he isnt he. If he is offside, and a goal is scored then it is a clear error. Not blaming the lino, sometimes they are very tight and very difficult calls however if he is offside its incorrect to allow goal to stand.
I dont disagree that at present its a dogs dinner, to be frank, and needs a lot of work but I still think its use in goals can be advantageous.
 
JamesL said:
Not so when you apply the principles of
Clear error or serious incident. What you describe above is trifling and opinion of ref and goal should be allowed to stand on that virtue.
For example checking for offside... it is a factual decision. He is on or he is off. There is no is he isnt he. If he is offside, and a goal is scored then it is a clear error. Not blaming the lino, sometimes they are very tight and very difficult calls however if he is offside its incorrect to allow goal to stand.
I dont disagree that at present its a dogs dinner, to be frank, and needs a lot of work but I still think its use in goals can be advantageous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't had an issue when it's used for off-side. The only thing I don't like about it on off-side though is why a player is incorrectly flagged off-side, the ref blows the whistle but the player was on and the moments lost. I don't know what the solution is on that though because it becomes complicated i.e do you not flag, do you not whistle despite the flag going up, does the player play on when he sees the flag but doesn't hear the whistle etc.

And also, I think they've got to be very very careful on offside in terms of using the lines etc as an exact measurement because when it's borderline you'll often think it's borderline and the no flag was correct but when you start using lines and VAR etc for the borderline ones, what are we measuring....a finger offside etc?

Clear and serious incident of course makes sense, but I've seen VAR used on calls that you wouldn't say were clear, so that's another interpretation.

Pawson the other night on the last West Brom goal, the goal that he checked that was fine. Isn't the course of action when you believe the goal is completely fine to run towards the half way line? I don't know why he felt the need after it went in to stand in the area with his finger to his ear checking the goal. Surely he continues as normal and if there is something not right, the VAR can recommend it to him in his ear?

And I know I am rambling on and not aimed at you just generally, but why can't the ref's multi-task? That incident in the Netherlands where the ref waved away a pen appeal, and the other team counter attacked and scored only for the ref to then consult VAR, disallow the goal and give a penalty. That's a mess. Why after the pen incident, which you can see it's a clear pen on replay after about three seconds, can't the VAR say to the ref that's a penalty? The other team would barely start the attack and the ref calls a penalty. That's how you streamline it imo, I don't think there can be an incident and you let the play continue until it goes out of play. The VAR needs to be able to check asap and relay that info to the ref straight after the incident.
 
JamesL said:
Read it again santa. It definitely does say that.
Its basically covering the scenario of events that shouldnt of happened had the correct decision been made in the first instance. Thats certainly how I read it at least.
I think thats backed up by the "except spa / dogso" as rightly so there was no promising attack or ogso as the review would have ruled out tht passage of play.
Click to expand...
You are interpreting. It might include that. But it seems to me that it also opens up mistaken sanctions not being rescindable on the spot if they are not DOGSO/SPA, which is odd, as the VAR is supposed to deal with mistaken identity. I am interpreting too!

It's about timing. #10 is kinda forcing refs to wait for an advisory in their ear'ole before they make any major decision... also seems like advantage scenarios could cause difficulties
 
PinnerPaul said:
11. Don't really understand this? Anyone help on this one?
Click to expand...
I was wondering about this one also. To get the full picture on this you have to read the full protocol - the explanation goes on for several pages but the ultimate maximum period is determined by the laws as regards to restarts. As stated in the protocol:


IMG_20180131_125336.png
So similarly, the ultimate maximum period before an incident that can be reviewed is the period back to the previous restart - although in most cases it it's recommended only to go back to the beginning of the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) preceding the incident under review - and it's the explanation of what constitutes an APP that extends to a few pages and makes it so complicated.
 
Last edited:
NorthLondonRef said:
Yeah, I haven't had an issue when it's used for off-side. The only thing I don't like about it on off-side though is why a player is incorrectly flagged off-side, the ref blows the whistle but the player was on and the moments lost. I don't know what the solution is on that though because it becomes complicated i.e do you not flag, do you not whistle despite the flag going up, does the player play on when he sees the flag but doesn't hear the whistle etc.

And also, I think they've got to be very very careful on offside in terms of using the lines etc as an exact measurement because when it's borderline you'll often think it's borderline and the no flag was correct but when you start using lines and VAR etc for the borderline ones, what are we measuring....a finger offside etc?

Clear and serious incident of course makes sense, but I've seen VAR used on calls that you wouldn't say were clear, so that's another interpretation.

Pawson the other night on the last West Brom goal, the goal that he checked that was fine. Isn't the course of action when you believe the goal is completely fine to run towards the half way line? I don't know why he felt the need after it went in to stand in the area with his finger to his ear checking the goal. Surely he continues as normal and if there is something not right, the VAR can recommend it to him in his ear?

And I know I am rambling on and not aimed at you just generally, but why can't the ref's multi-task? That incident in the Netherlands where the ref waved away a pen appeal, and the other team counter attacked and scored only for the ref to then consult VAR, disallow the goal and give a penalty. That's a mess. Why after the pen incident, which you can see it's a clear pen on replay after about three seconds, can't the VAR say to the ref that's a penalty? The other team would barely start the attack and the ref calls a penalty. That's how you streamline it imo, I don't think there can be an incident and you let the play continue until it goes out of play. The VAR needs to be able to check asap and relay that info to the ref straight after the incident.
Click to expand...
Your other issues of AR flagging wrong offside in a GSO is actually covered in the protocol. AR is meant to delay flag in these cases until and outcome is reached. It solves that problem.
As I mentioned in my previous post we need to be careful not to blame the system if the officials are messing it up. I am not saying it's working but incorrect application is making it look a lot worse than it actually is.
I actually hated it before I read the full protocol document. Now I just dislike it. It needs some work. But I can see a future for it.
 
Peter Grove said:
I was wondering about this one also. To get the full picture on this you have to read the full protocol - the explanation goes on for several pages but the ultimate maximum period is determined by the laws as regards to restarts. As stated in the protocol:


View attachment 1675
So similarly, the ultimate maximum period before an incident that can be reviewed is the period back to the previous restart - although in most cases it it's recommended only to go back to the beginning of the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) preceding the incident under review - and it's the explanation of what constitutes an APP that extends to a few pages and makes it so complicated.
Click to expand...
While I do appreciate the well-researched answer, the problem comes when a document like this effectively starts to refer to itself for what they can and cannot do. If the people who set the rules for VAR (IFAB) want to allow a decision to be changed after a restart, the only rulebook stopping them is the LOTG....which is written by IFAB...

Trying to introduce VAR into an existing framework without changing anything else is the root cause of half of the problems we're seeing IMO. The rule that the referee has to be the final decision maker is archaic, but is what leads to the farcical situation of the ref having to jog to the side of the pitch to check decisions. And that's just one example.
 
Last edited:
GraemeS said:
The rule that the referee has to be the final decision maker is archaic, but is what leads to the farsical situation of the ref having to jog to the side of the pitch to check decisions. And that's just one example.
Click to expand...
I actualy think there is a much simpler solution here. Have complete trust in your VAR adapt his recommendation without unnecessary discussions and further re-review.
 
one said:
I actualy think there is a much simpler solution here. Have complete trust in your VAR adapt his recommendation without unnecessary discussions and further re-review.
Click to expand...
Exactly - but as I say, the laws state that the referee has to make all final decisions, which is why the option of him going to the side of the pitch "has" to be available and the VAR can only advise. If they actually gave the VAR power to make decisions and overrule, your suggestion makes a lot of sense - but they will refer back to the LOTG and say that forbids them from implementing VAR in that way.
 
JamesL said:
Read it again santa. It definitely does say that.
Its basically covering the scenario of events that shouldnt of happened had the correct decision been made in the first instance. Thats certainly how I read it at least.
I think thats backed up by the "except spa / dogso" as rightly so there was no promising attack or ogso as the review would have ruled out tht passage of play.
Click to expand...

Its not clear is it? Point 6 says only ref can call for a review. Point 1 talks about VAR is only 'used' for clear and obvious errors - don't think those or any of the other points covers reviewing all goals though?
 
one said:
I actualy think there is a much simpler solution here. Have complete trust in your VAR adapt his recommendation without unnecessary discussions and further re-review.
Click to expand...

Except that goes against the one referee ethos, which I think is correct.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Except that goes against the one referee ethos, which I think is correct.
Click to expand...
It is still one referee. He has the final say. But he does it with full trust on his VAR without having to reconfirm his video observation. There can be a rare occasion discussion for clarification.
Works the same way with an AR for an offside position. You fully trust his decision and don't get into a discussion with him. On the rare occasion there are discussion on interference.
 
santa sangria said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ree-var-aves-boavista-giant-flag-goal-offside

LOL
Click to expand...

This is hilarious and demonstrates possibly the biggest flaw of VAR (though I remain a fan) - the VAR only has access to the camera feeds available at the ground - because of the structure of stadia, angles won't be right at certain grounds (or in the most extreme cases this happens) - you can never guarantee what sort of coverage each VAR is going to get at each ground.
 
GraemeS said:
Manager of a team of divers doesn't like the idea of penalty decisions being reviewable? Shocking!
Click to expand...

right let's drop the fact he's trying to defend for a minute, I'm all for technology and it seems that yes indeed VAR in one form or another is here to stay. He does have a valid point, or two, we are risking this being taken out of control and referees/ARs afraid to make a decision because there is the safety net of VAR. For me, now in its form is a No, too much risk involved and not enough rewards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top